USA v. Ishaque

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEREK ISHAQUE,
Defendant
Case No.: 3:23-cr-02528-H
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION
TO/FOR A:
1. SCHEDULING ORDER
REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
TO ADMIT EVIDENCE;
2. CONTINUE STATUS HEARING TO
DATE OF MOTION HEARING;AND
3. EXCLUDE TIME
Based on the joint motion of the parties, and for good cause shown, the Court sets the
following scheduling order for Defendant to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
order to admit factual admissions from his withdrawn plea agreement and at the change of
plea hearing (ECF Nos. 57, 61-63):
• 	Defendant shall file such motion no later than March 27, 2026;
• 	The United States to file its opposition brief no later than April 7, 2026;
• 	Defendant shall file his optional reply brief no later than April 13, 2026.
The Court sets a hearing on the motion on April 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Also, the Court order the status conference currently scheduled for February 2, 2026,
be continued until the date of the motion hearing.
Also, the Court orders the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act until the n
motion hearing date for the following reasons:
Case 3:23-cr-02528-H Document 67 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of
2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:23-cr-02528-H
• 	Defendant intends to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order to admit
evidence;
• 	Attorney Owen Roth has recently entered the case for Defendant, replacing Ms.
McKeivier;
• 	The complexity and unusualness of the case requires additional time for Defendant
to adequate prepare his defense in this case, especially with new counsel, and failure
to grant the request would likely result in a miscarriage of justice;
• 	The United States has sent voluminous discovery in this case, approximately 90
gigabytes, which has required and continues to require extensive time to go through.
There is a small amount of remaining discovery that will be produces soon. As such,
the requested exclusion of time is necessary for the adequate preparation of the
defense taking into account the exercise of due diligence, it would be unreasonable
to expect adequate preparation for trial of this complex case within the time limits
established by § 3161, and that failure to grant the exclusion would result in a
miscarriage of justice;
• 	The interests of justice weigh in favor of excluding time, outweighing the best interest
of the public and the defendants in a speedier trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/21/2026 	________________________________
Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
United States District Court
Case 3:23-cr-02528-H Document 67 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of
2